The Golden Circle Strikes again!

turly

Golden Circle, is it?

A Golden Shower is more like it. Feckers.

SkepticOne

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Or is there something else to it entirely - i.e. the possibility of this being regarded as market abuse/insider trading not just on the Anglo side but also on the part of the 10?

Why would the 10 be immune from market abuse?

“market abuse” means -
(a) insider dealing, or
(b) market manipulation;
“market manipulation” means -
(a) transactions or orders to trade -
(i) which give, or are likely to give, false or misleading signals as
to the supply of, demand for or price of financial instruments, or
(ii) which secure, by a person, or persons acting in collaboration, the price of one or several financial instruments at an abnormal or artificial level,

http://www.entemp.ie/publications/sis/2005/si342.pdf

FrankGrimes

SkepticOne wrote: »

Why would the 10 be immune from market abuse? http://www.entemp.ie/publications/sis/2005/si342.pdf

I'm definitely not advocating that they should be immune from market abuse - I was just trying to figure out what aspects of their involvement may be regarded as in breach of market rules: I could clearly see that Anglo did wrong by instigating these deals but wasn't sure if the person availing of the offer could also be in breach. Good to see that it may not be just a one-way thing and that the 10 may also have a case to answer.

By the above I'm trying to look at it from the legal perspective - i.e. can action be taken against them. On the moral side of things I think they are totally in the wrong. I could not look myself in the mirror each morning knowing I had been involved in a deal that led to the ordinary taxpayer picking up the bill for at least 75% of my stake in what amounted to an ill-judged gamble.

In relation to the 25% that was actually guaranteed - why would Anglo be writing this off, surely it was secured against assets and they should go after those asssets if the repayments of the 25% are defaulted? There's an absence of clarity on this area that I think is leading to most people assuming that the 10 have or will default on the 25% - a simple statement from Anglo (without revealing names) would address this.

One other thing I'd like to know: if I take out a car loan and default against it, my car will be repossessed and I will owe the bank any difference in the value of the car versus the debt I owe them. My credit rating will also be destroyed and I will find it very difficult to get any form of credit in future. In my view that's only right - people should have to face the consequences of their actions. Now, assuming the 10 have already defaulted on the unsecured 75% of their loans, if they also default against the secured 25%, what will be the consequences from them - will they also find it difficult to get credit in future? I can't see any reason why the fact their loans are of a different magnitude to the car loan example would mean they should suffer less consequences.

SkepticOne

FrankGrimes wrote: »

I'm definitely not advocating that they should be immune from market abuse - I was just trying to figure out what aspects of their involvement may be regarded as in breach of market rules: I could clearly see that Anglo did wrong by instigating these deals but wasn't sure if the person availing of the offer could also be in breach. Good to see that it may not be just a one-way thing and that the 10 may also have a case to answer.

By the above I'm trying to look at it from the legal perspective - i.e. can action be taken against them. On the moral side of things I think they are totally in the wrong. I could not look myself in the mirror each morning knowing I had been involved in a deal that led to the ordinary taxpayer picking up the bill for at least 75% of my stake in what amounted to an ill-judged gamble.

I don't know the full details of what went on but I think if the management of Anglo were trying to manipulate the share price and recruited these ten then I can't see how the ten would conspirators to market abuse but maybe I'm wrong here.

On the other issue, I too would like to know why the loans were written off. My sincere hope is that this is not going to be the subject of a cover up but that it will be investigated properly.

grahamo

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5581673.ece

I found this article online. Its a very interesting read. Market manipulation anyone?

asdasd

I don't know the full details of what went on but I think if the management of Anglo were trying to manipulate the share price and recruited these ten then I can't see how the ten would conspirators to market abuse but maybe I'm wrong here.

That is what is in dispute. However it is legal to buyback your own shares, so is it legal to loan someone to buy back your shares? it could well be legal, if immoral. I am not sure what manipulation was involved - certainly the Golden Circle were trying to punish short sellers but they themselves were not technically insiders of the company. After all my mom owns shares in AIB, and has a loan with AIB. Thats legal.

So I remain unsure.

What I am sure about is this: if there were an agreement to write off these loans, verbally or written, the loans become income. Tax is due. That is the minimum we an expect. We also need to know why these loans were written off. By whom. That decision is the one we need to look at. why did it happen. did it happen after nationalisation? Who authorized the write-down of the loan?

SkepticOne

asdasd wrote: »

That is what is in dispute. However it is legal to buyback your own shares, so is it legal to loan someone to buy back your shares? it could well be legal, if immoral. I am not sure what manipulation was involved - certainly the Golden Circle were trying to punish short sellers but they themselves were not technically insiders of the company. After all my mom owns shares in AIB, and has a loan with AIB. Thats legal.

So I remain unsure.

What I am sure about is this: if there were an agreement to write off these loans, verbally or written, the loans become income. Tax is due. That is the minimum we an expect. We also need to know why these loans were written off. By whom. That decision is the one we need to look at. why did it happen. did it happen after nationalisation? Who authorized the write-down of the loan?

Maybe someone with the appropriate background can comment here, but I don't think you need to be officially connected with the company to be done for insider trading. However what I think may have allegedly gone on here is market manipulation i.e. coordinated trading in shares in order to deliberately affect the share price.

The other point is that although a company can buy back its shares, I belive there are procedures for doing so. It cannot be done in secret through third parties, for example.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

That is what is in dispute. However it is legal to buyback your own shares, so is it legal to loan someone to buy back your shares? it could well be legal, if immoral.

If a company buys its own shares back it has to declare it to the stock exchange. The reason they chose to do it this way is to avoid that rule and to defraud the market into thinking there was any demand or confidence in their shares.

nesf

Just make a few people's blood boil:

McEvaddy praises Golden Circle 'heroes'

The Raven.

nesf wrote: »

Just make a few people's blood boil:

McEvaddy praises Golden Circle 'heroes'

I heard that this morning. It's hard to believe that anyone could be so painfully stupid :eek:!!

Here is the link to the Anglo Irish report.

http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors/Reports/Annual_Report_2008/Annual_Report_2008.pdf

It is 168 pages long. Accounting is not my field, but as it is the Irish tax-payers' money, I take more interest (pardon the pun !!). The following extract from page 4 confirms what has been said here.

Share transactions
The total amount loaned to ten longstanding clients of the Bank to buy shares from the CFD providers was €451 million of which €83 million has been repaid. As well as the shares being held as security for the loans, there is additional recourse to the individuals’ personal assets equivalent to 25% of their borrowings. The value of the underlying shares will not be clear until the assessor’s work is complete. The Bank will seek repayment under the borrowers’ recourse obligations as necessary.

I cannot understand why they don't call in the full amount of the loans. What excuse, if any, is being given for this?

xOxSinéadxOx

It's all pretty hilarious when you think about it, I mean if it wasn't actually happening. They could make a film about all the stuff that's going on

K-9

The Raven. wrote: »

I heard that this morning. It's hard to believe that anyone could be so painfully stupid :eek:!!

Here is the link to the Anglo Irish report.

http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors/Reports/Annual_Report_2008/Annual_Report_2008.pdf

It is 168 pages long. Accounting is not my field, but as it is the Irish tax-payers' money, I take more interest (pardon the pun !!). The following extract from page 4 confirms what has been said here.



I cannot understand why they don't call in the full amount of the loans. What excuse, if any, is being given for this?

The personal guarentees and assets have been wiped?

Now worth at the most, 25% of the value at the time of loans granted?

cat&mouse

The Guessing Game: Have fun!
Why not set up a game to find out who they might be..
Something like this.
You ask 5 questions and if all are yes, then give the Initials who we might think one of them is, like I spy with my little eye, someone/something begining with H Then you either say, Yes or No. 5 Gos and you get to give the initials . You will be rewarded with something like
A Gold Circle, a few carrotts less than the norm, failing that Throw in a few shares !!!!!!!!!!!

ionix5891

is this like the final 5 cylons in BSG :cool:

brian ireland

bailoutmascot.jpg